Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40859334›Full record

SynthesisCancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society2025

Machine Learning-Driven radiomics on 18 F-FDG PET for glioma diagnosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Ali Shahriari, Sasan Ghazanafar Ahari, Ali Mousavi, Mahdie Sadeghi, Marjan Abbasi, Mahsa Hosseinpour, Asal Mir, Dorrin Zohouri Zanganeh, Hossein Gharedaghi, Saba Ezati and 8 more

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Comparative Insights intoMolecular imaging and radionuclide therapy · 2026
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

18 authors.

Ali Shahriari *Department of Radiation Oncology, Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, USA.
Sasan Ghazanafar Ahari *Student Research Committee, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9808-4163
Ali Mousavi *Student Research Committee, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0004-0567-3703
Mahdie SadeghiQazvin University of Medical Sciences, Qazvin, Iran.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0009-0279-4725
Marjan AbbasiShahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0000-9759-7285
Mahsa HosseinpourMazandaran University of Medical Sciences, Sari, Iran.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0001-2690-1101
Asal MirDepartment of medicine, Mashhad university of medical sciences, Mashhad, Iran.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1601-7064
Dorrin Zohouri ZanganehQazvin University of Medical Sciences, Qazvin, Iran.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0007-5931-6877
Hossein GharedaghiSchool of Medicine, Zanjan University of Medical Science, Zanjan, Iran.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0956-4764
Saba EzatiMazandaran University of Medical Sciences, Sari, Iran.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0000-8473-9109
Ali SareminiaShiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran.
Dina SeyediMusculoskeletal Imaging Research Center (MIRC), Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0002-1592-038X
Mahla ShokouhfarSchool of Medicine, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehrani, Iran.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0003-4833-0260
Ali DarziSchool of Medicine, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehrani, Iran.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0008-3126-7601
Alireza GhaedaminiNeurosurgery Department, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran. alirezaghaedamini@gmail.com.
Sara ZamaniStudent Research Committee, School of Medicine, Guilan University of Medical Sciences, Rasht, Iran.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0003-2488-6432
Farbod KhosraviDepartment of Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Mahsa Asadi AnarSchool of Medicine, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehrani, Iran. Mahsa.boz@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5772-2472

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMachine learning (ML) applied to radiomics has revolutionized neuro-oncological imaging, yet the diagnostic performance of ML models based specifically on ^18F-FDG PET features in glioma remains poorly characterized.

objectiveTo systematically evaluate and quantitatively synthesize the diagnostic accuracy of ML models trained on ^18F-FDG PET radiomics for glioma classification.

methodsWe conducted a PRISMA-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis registered on OSF ( https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/XJG6P ). PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched up to January 2025. Studies were included if they applied ML algorithms to ^18F-FDG PET radiomic features for glioma classification and reported at least one performance metric. Data extraction included demographics, imaging protocols, feature types, ML models, and validation design. Meta-analysis was performed using random-effects models with pooled estimates of accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, AUC, F1 score, and precision. Heterogeneity was explored via meta-regression and Galbraith plots.

resultsTwelve studies comprising 2,321 patients were included. Pooled diagnostic metrics were: accuracy 92.6% (95% CI: 91.3-93.9%), AUC 0.95 (95% CI: 0.94-0.95), sensitivity 85.4%, specificity 89.7%, F1 score 0.78, and precision 0.90. Heterogeneity was high across all domains (I² >75%). Meta-regression identified ML model type and validation strategy as partial moderators. Models using CNNs or PET/MRI integration achieved superior performance.

conclusionML models based on ^18F-FDG PET radiomics demonstrate strong and balanced diagnostic performance for glioma classification. However, methodological heterogeneity underscores the need for standardized pipelines, external validation, and transparent reporting before clinical integration.

Indexed as

Brain NeoplasmsFluorodeoxyglucose F18GliomaMachine LearningPositron-Emission TomographyHumansRadiomicsRadiopharmaceuticalsFluorodeoxyglucose F18Radiopharmaceuticals^18F-FDG PETDiagnostic accuracyGliomaMachine learningMeta-analysisRadiomics

Identifiers

PMID40859334
PMCPMC12379540

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.